1988 P Cr (PLP)

M.A. Chaudhry for the State. A case under Section 302, P.P.C. was registered at Police Station Ravi Road, Lahore, on the statement of Gul Roze, Chowkidar, who had spotted an unidentified dead body. Neither name of the deceased was mentioned in the F.I.R. nor anybody is named as an accused, not to speak of any witness. During investigation, it transpired that the deceased was Najmul Hasan resident of Islamabad Colony, Pakki Thatthi, Samanabad, Lahore. He had a wife named Mst. Nasim Akhtar, who had developed illicit relations with Muhammad Ashraf petitioner. They were interested in doing away with Najmul Hasan. Mst. Nasim hired one Anwar for that, who had brotherly relations with her. Valium‑V tablets (sleeping pills) were purchased by Mst. Nasim from one Ifzal, whose statement was recorded during the investigation. Those tablets were administered, after grinding by Mst. Nasim, to her husband Najmul Hasan in his house, whereafter he was taken in unconscious condition by Anwar in rickshaw to some unknown place. While on way, Anwar finished him by throttling. The police recorded the statement of one Saifullah, who deposed about illicit relations of the petitioner with Mst. Nasim. Statement of Ifzal was also recorded. Ifzal stated that Mst. Nasim had come to his shop and had purchased Valium‑V tablets and at that time Muhammad Ashraf (petitioner) was standing outside the shop at some distance. He also stated that one other person was also present there whose name, he has forgotten. Statements of Muhammad Riaz and Azhar Hasan brothers of the deceased and one Ghulam Hasan were also recorded on 30‑11‑1987, wherein they stated that Mst. Nasim had made confession before them about the events noted above. They also added in the end of their statements that after the statement made by Mst. Nasim they had sent for Ashraf petitioner and Anwar who had also corroborated the statement made by her. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the grant of bail on the grounds that apparently it seems to be a case of pre‑planned murder and that since evidence of motive has clearly come against the petitioner, he cannot be addressed not to have been connected with the crime. Learned counsel submitted that the fact of his having accompanied Mst. Nasim for purchasing tablets for administering to the deceased, and the fact 'of the three witnesses having stated about his extra‑judicial confession, make out clearly a case against the petitioner, at this stage to refuse concession of bail. Learned counsel for the State has owned the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand submits that the deceased definitely died as a result of throttling, which according to investigation was done by Anwar and it is prosecution's own case that the petitioner was not with Anwar at that time. Learned counsel submits that even according to prosecution's case, the petitioner had neither paid for the tablets nor did he obtain the same. According to him, he had not even handled those. The position that thus emerges, is that the petitioner had neither administered the spurious medicine nor had caused the death of the deceased. In the circumstances, reasonable grounds do not appear against the petitioner at this stage, of having committed the offence charged with. This petition is, therefore, allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail, provided he furnishes bail bond in the sum of Rs. twenty‑five thousand with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, City, Lahore. S.A. /M‑752/L Bail allowed.